Liberals need to understand Gun Guys

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    MotoJ

    Active Member
    Sep 4, 2012
    267
    Mobtown
    As a pro-gun liberal, I love this article. (Yes, I'm largely a liberal. I pretty much refuse to talk about anything other than guns or Second Amendment related topics here because I'm tired of getting flamed for it.)

    Remember folks, the gun control mindset is a subset of the liberal mindset. It's not all inclusive. We're not all bad or full of psychobabble.

    Remember, that if we want them to understand us, we have to take time to understand them too. It works both ways.

    I'll certainly be sharing it with all of my non-pro-gun liberal friends and asking for their opinions.

    They will chuckle at you and shake their heads and wonder at what a rebel and iconoclast you are, but they will be thinking you're a nut, although they might never tell you. You'll be known out of earshot as- Ol' Hoppy- nice enough guy, but did you know he likes GUNZ?! Gasp.
     

    circadia

    Active Member
    Jan 19, 2013
    268
    Arbutus
    The CDC stats for firearm homicides in the same timeframe are closer to 11,000. I consider the FBI and CDC stats to be the upper and lower bounds of "reality".

    Ah ok. Thanks for that. I'll put more credence in the FBI crime numbers than the CDC's, but it's good to know where the discrepancy comes from.
     

    Hopalong

    Man of Many Nicknames
    Jun 28, 2010
    2,921
    Howard County
    Ah ok. Thanks for that. I'll put more credence in the FBI crime numbers than the CDC's, but it's good to know where the discrepancy comes from.

    The FBI stats are, by their own admission, incomplete. Not all police districts report to it, but it's something like 95%.

    The CDC takes their numbers from morgue reports, so I think they're more accurate on the total numbers, but they're not nearly as detailed with things like weapon used, attacker/victim info, etc.

    So, I rely on both. Typically, I'll extrapolate the FBI numbers up to the CDC total and go from there. (Yes, I'm not just a liberal, I'm a scientist. And I shoot. I'm like a walking enigma....)
     

    MadCat0911

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 2, 2013
    1,145
    Hanover
    he understands a lot about us. maybe he can help talk to the real liberal sob's out there and explain that we are not all a bunch of gun nuts running amuck. but then again we need to watch our backs, i think.

    Why do you say this?

    I've heard this said a lot about liberals who own guns, that gun owners can't really trust them. Like just because we trust that our government isn't going to turn on us anytime soon, somehow we're "not really in the fight." That because my guns are just some hobby for me, somehow I'm not going to fight just as hard to keep that hobby. There seems to be a belief that liberal gun owners won't stick to their guns, so to speak, protecting the second amendment.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    As a pro-gun liberal, I love this article. (Yes, I'm largely a liberal. I pretty much refuse to talk about anything other than guns or Second Amendment related topics here because I'm tired of getting flamed for it.)

    Remember folks, the gun control mindset is a subset of the liberal mindset. It's not all inclusive. We're not all bad or full of psychobabble.

    Remember, that if we want them to understand us, we have to take time to understand them too. It works both ways.

    I'll certainly be sharing it with all of my non-pro-gun liberal friends and asking for their opinions.

    EDIT:



    The CDC stats for firearm homicides in the same timeframe are closer to 11,000. I consider the FBI and CDC stats to be the upper and lower bounds of "reality".



    The term liberal had been co-opted by statists . I have had many fine and productive conversations with actual liberals. By productive I mean they move ever so slightly in my direction because I am also a liberal, a classic liberal,ducking for cover in the Republican party.

    Some day we may meet and you may discover that you are classical liberal too. Then maybe we can break cover and deal with the professional statists in both parties.
     

    bjmsam

    The Skeptic
    "Liberalism" originally meant what we now call libertarianism -- limited government, free people, and free markets. Its opposite was "conservatism," which sought to preserve traditional institutions of government, religion, social class relations, etc.

    The core of what's called liberalism today is the creation and enforcement of equality through the power of government; that's the essential socialist position, and it's antithetical to liberalism in its original, libertarian meaning. Today's liberals want to enforce equality of results, while the original liberal understanding was that the power of government should only be used to create greater equality of opportunity by lowering the barriers to individual accomplishment.

    Today's conservatism is problematic because it tries to do two things at the same time: To allow maximum economic freedom, which inevitably creates lots of inequality, but also to use government power to enforce a social agenda. It's hard to be convincing in your talk about liberty when you are also out to control people's private reproductive behavior.

    The terminology is incoherent because, as Hayek pointed out, there are not two positions -- Liberal vs. Conservative, to be distinguished as if they are the end points of an ideological straight line, with perhaps its center point labeled "Moderate." In reality there are three positions, and when you try to cram the three into two, you get a mess.

    The three positions are (1) Conservatism, (2) Socialism, and (3) Libertarianism. Imagine a triangle with those three as its corners. Any point inside the triangle will be some different mix of the three. Any attempt to squash the triangle into a line only creates the terminological mess we have, which makes all political discussion incoherent. This is why both sides constantly complain that their position is being treated superficially, and why both sides end up talking past each other.
     

    MotoJ

    Active Member
    Sep 4, 2012
    267
    Mobtown
    "Liberalism" originally meant what we now call libertarianism -- limited government, free people, and free markets. Its opposite was "conservatism," which sought to preserve traditional institutions of government, religion, social class relations, etc.

    The core of what's called liberalism today is the creation and enforcement of equality through the power of government; that's the essential socialist position, and it's antithetical to liberalism in its original, libertarian meaning. Today's liberals want to enforce equality of results, while the original liberal understanding was that the power of government should only be used to create greater equality of opportunity by lowering the barriers to individual accomplishment.

    Today's conservatism is problematic because it tries to do two things at the same time: To allow maximum economic freedom, which inevitably creates lots of inequality, but also to use government power to enforce a social agenda. It's hard to be convincing in your talk about liberty when you are also out to control people's private reproductive behavior.

    The terminology is incoherent because, as Hayek pointed out, there are not two positions -- Liberal vs. Conservative, to be distinguished as if they are the end points of an ideological straight line, with perhaps its center point labeled "Moderate." In reality there are three positions, and when you try to cram the three into two, you get a mess.

    The three positions are (1) Conservatism, (2) Socialism, and (3) Libertarianism. Imagine a triangle with those three as its corners. Any point inside the triangle will be some different mix of the three. Any attempt to squash the triangle into a line only creates the terminological mess we have, which makes all political discussion incoherent. This is why both sides constantly complain that their position is being treated superficially, and why both sides end up talking past each other.

    this is excellent
     

    BerettaTMC

    Member
    Apr 12, 2010
    31
    "Liberalism" originally meant what we now call libertarianism -- limited government, free people, and free markets. Its opposite was "conservatism," which sought to preserve traditional institutions of government, religion, social class relations, etc.

    The core of what's called liberalism today is the creation and enforcement of equality through the power of government; that's the essential socialist position, and it's antithetical to liberalism in its original, libertarian meaning. Today's liberals want to enforce equality of results, while the original liberal understanding was that the power of government should only be used to create greater equality of opportunity by lowering the barriers to individual accomplishment.

    Today's conservatism is problematic because it tries to do two things at the same time: To allow maximum economic freedom, which inevitably creates lots of inequality, but also to use government power to enforce a social agenda. It's hard to be convincing in your talk about liberty when you are also out to control people's private reproductive behavior.

    The terminology is incoherent because, as Hayek pointed out, there are not two positions -- Liberal vs. Conservative, to be distinguished as if they are the end points of an ideological straight line, with perhaps its center point labeled "Moderate." In reality there are three positions, and when you try to cram the three into two, you get a mess.

    The three positions are (1) Conservatism, (2) Socialism, and (3) Libertarianism. Imagine a triangle with those three as its corners. Any point inside the triangle will be some different mix of the three. Any attempt to squash the triangle into a line only creates the terminological mess we have, which makes all political discussion incoherent. This is why both sides constantly complain that their position is being treated superficially, and why both sides end up talking past each other.

    Very nice summary!
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,687
    It's a very good book, one I wish had been published a month ago, instead of this week. Handing out copies to the fence-sitters in the MD legislature would have informed them and made a few converts, I think.

    The author IS a gun guy; his problem, if he can be said to have one, is that he really looks into things, and responds according to his beliefs. And his beliefs are those of a thoughtful person who has been influenced by religion. While he is able to get deep into peoples' motivations, and his own, I think he tends to overthink the situations he finds himself in.

    But the stories are excellent; my favorite is the machine gun shoot in the desert, where there are probably a couple million dollars worth of rare and collectible guns being shot off with the sort of joy only we can imagine. Baum rents a Thompson, and uses it to . . . no, I'm not going to spoil it for you. Read the book. It's really great how he's managed to connect with so many different people, all different facets of the gun culture in the US. I'd have paid to go along for the ride.

    On a personal note, I made contact with the author a year or so ago; he was selling his Detective Special on GB, and I ended up buying it. We exchanged some interesting email, and he told me about his book project. Alas, no invitation to share the road trip.
     

    rh92

    Active Member
    Mar 2, 2013
    779
    Rockville
    Good article.


    "Liberalism" originally meant what we now call libertarianism -- limited government, free people, and free markets. Its opposite was "conservatism," which sought to preserve traditional institutions of government, religion, social class relations, etc.

    The core of what's called liberalism today is the creation and enforcement of equality through the power of government; that's the essential socialist position, and it's antithetical to liberalism in its original, libertarian meaning. Today's liberals want to enforce equality of results, while the original liberal understanding was that the power of government should only be used to create greater equality of opportunity by lowering the barriers to individual accomplishment.

    Today's conservatism is problematic because it tries to do two things at the same time: To allow maximum economic freedom, which inevitably creates lots of inequality, but also to use government power to enforce a social agenda. It's hard to be convincing in your talk about liberty when you are also out to control people's private reproductive behavior.

    The terminology is incoherent because, as Hayek pointed out, there are not two positions -- Liberal vs. Conservative, to be distinguished as if they are the end points of an ideological straight line, with perhaps its center point labeled "Moderate." In reality there are three positions, and when you try to cram the three into two, you get a mess.

    The three positions are (1) Conservatism, (2) Socialism, and (3) Libertarianism. Imagine a triangle with those three as its corners. Any point inside the triangle will be some different mix of the three. Any attempt to squash the triangle into a line only creates the terminological mess we have, which makes all political discussion incoherent. This is why both sides constantly complain that their position is being treated superficially, and why both sides end up talking past each other.
    Great post.

    This is why I hate the world today. I don't want the government deciding what's right for me, whether it is through personal responsibility or social responsibility.
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    This is the second time I happened across an article about him. The first was the WSJ article. I like the cut of his jib. His marketing worked; I'm checking the book out at the library when it comes out.
     

    TxAggie

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 25, 2012
    4,734
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    "Liberalism" originally meant what we now call libertarianism -- limited government, free people, and free markets. Its opposite was "conservatism," which sought to preserve traditional institutions of government, religion, social class relations, etc.

    The core of what's called liberalism today is the creation and enforcement of equality through the power of government; that's the essential socialist position, and it's antithetical to liberalism in its original, libertarian meaning. Today's liberals want to enforce equality of results, while the original liberal understanding was that the power of government should only be used to create greater equality of opportunity by lowering the barriers to individual accomplishment.

    Today's conservatism is problematic because it tries to do two things at the same time: To allow maximum economic freedom, which inevitably creates lots of inequality, but also to use government power to enforce a social agenda. It's hard to be convincing in your talk about liberty when you are also out to control people's private reproductive behavior.

    The terminology is incoherent because, as Hayek pointed out, there are not two positions -- Liberal vs. Conservative, to be distinguished as if they are the end points of an ideological straight line, with perhaps its center point labeled "Moderate." In reality there are three positions, and when you try to cram the three into two, you get a mess.

    The three positions are (1) Conservatism, (2) Socialism, and (3) Libertarianism. Imagine a triangle with those three as its corners. Any point inside the triangle will be some different mix of the three. Any attempt to squash the triangle into a line only creates the terminological mess we have, which makes all political discussion incoherent. This is why both sides constantly complain that their position is being treated superficially, and why both sides end up talking past each other.

    I've tried to come up with a way to say pretty much what you just said. Excellent write-up.
     

    Dave.B

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    May 15, 2011
    2,885
    The word "liberal" sure has changed in recent years. "Liberal" used to mean a broad interpretation of our rights. Liberal organizations (like the ACLU) were preoccupied defining rights that were not explicitly identified in the Constitution. Somewhere along the line, "Liberal" has come full circle to mean a totalitarian...authoritarian state of mind where only the "elite" determine what is best for the "plebians" under their dominion. NYC Mayor Bloomberg has determined that more than 20oz of sugar water is bad for the "plebians"....so he banned that. Obama, Feinstein and O'Malley have determined that we don't need "assault" weapons (and ironically, the people knowing the least about firearms are the ones defining what is an "assault weapon").

    The flip side of all this, is that my conservatism has grown into libertarianism. I have grown tired and angry at these dictators (politicians) over-regulating our daily lives. People around this country need to wake up and look around them and realize that collectively we are electing these dictators...and that we need to get them out of power before it is too late....


    Many liberals today are not classical liberals in the sense they believe in liberty. They are Marxist/ communist in nature and really need to be tarred and feathered.Same goes for uber conservatives as well. I want both parties out of my life because they both suck and work together to stick it to us little guys.
     

    Dogabutila

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 21, 2010
    2,359
    Why do you say this?

    I've heard this said a lot about liberals who own guns, that gun owners can't really trust them. Like just because we trust that our government isn't going to turn on us anytime soon, somehow we're "not really in the fight." That because my guns are just some hobby for me, somehow I'm not going to fight just as hard to keep that hobby. There seems to be a belief that liberal gun owners won't stick to their guns, so to speak, protecting the second amendment.

    I'll engage.

    Because you voted for obama, omalley, and frosh. You voted for Cumo, for Feinstein. That hardly seems like you are in the fight. YOU (the 1/3 of you "gun loving" liberals) caused this problem. If you really cared about guns, you wouldn't have voted for them. NO gun grabbing progressive could EVER be elected if you didn't have the mental gymnastics capable to convince yourself into voting for them. And then having the audacity to come say you care just as much as we do, and fight just as hard as we do? Please.

    And there's the other reason. IF, or (hopefully not when) triggers start getting pulled there is no telling what side you will be on. Why would I want to train the person shooting at me?
     

    TxAggie

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 25, 2012
    4,734
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    Many liberals today are not classical liberals in the sense they believe in liberty. They are Marxist/ communist in nature and really need to be tarred and feathered.Same goes for uber conservatives as well. I want both parties out of my life because they both suck and work together to stick it to us little guys.

    Many aren't even liberals, they're more libertarian. They call themselves liberal because their parents are Democrats, and Dems are now identifying themselves as Liberals (when they are actually progressives or statists.) when asked issue by issue without labels, most of the country is decidedly libertarian/conservative, but because a D is next to a candidates name, they go with them because that's what their parents and all their friends do. They don't actually know anything about the issues.
     

    MadCat0911

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 2, 2013
    1,145
    Hanover
    I'll engage.

    Because you voted for obama, omalley, and frosh. You voted for Cumo, for Feinstein. That hardly seems like you are in the fight. YOU (the 1/3 of you "gun loving" liberals) caused this problem. If you really cared about guns, you wouldn't have voted for them. NO gun grabbing progressive could EVER be elected if you didn't have the mental gymnastics capable to convince yourself into voting for them. And then having the audacity to come say you care just as much as we do, and fight just as hard as we do? Please.

    And there's the other reason. IF, or (hopefully not when) triggers start getting pulled there is no telling what side you will be on. Why would I want to train the person shooting at me?

    "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
    -Mitt Romney

    Tell me, which presidential candidate would've been the good choice?
     

    Garet Jax

    Not ignored by gamer_jim
    MDS Supporter
    May 5, 2011
    6,571
    Bel Air
    Why do you say this?

    I've heard this said a lot about liberals who own guns, that gun owners can't really trust them. Like just because we trust that our government isn't going to turn on us anytime soon, somehow we're "not really in the fight." That because my guns are just some hobby for me, somehow I'm not going to fight just as hard to keep that hobby. There seems to be a belief that liberal gun owners won't stick to their guns, so to speak, protecting the second amendment.

    You answered your own question: hobby vs fundamental right as an American + a means to fight tyrannical government. They are not the same and do not have anywhere close to the same level of importance. The 2A has never been about a hobby and never will be about a hobby.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,586
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom